ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Comparison of Two Posterior Minimally Invasive Approaches for Odontoid Fractures: Midline Nuchal Ligament Approach vs. Paramedian Muscle-Splitting Approach.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe posterior minimally invasive approaches for odontoid fractures include the midline nuchal ligament approach (MNLA) and the paramedian muscle-splitting approach (PMSA). However comparative data on their anatomical characteristics and clinical efficacy remain scarce to date. The objective of this study is to determine the differences in anatomy and clinical outcomes between the MNLA and the PMSA for reduction and temporary internal fixation of odontoid fractures.
methodsThis retrospective analysis focused on 31 patients with odontoid fractures from February 2021 to December 2023. Among them,16 patients underwent PMSA and 15 patients underwent MNLA. Various parameters were compared between the two groups, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, edema rates of cervical posterior muscles, the range of motion in rotation of C1-C2, patient satisfaction, Visual Analogue Scale score for neck pain, axial symptom scores, and neck disability index. Additionally, an anatomical study was performed; the PMSA and the MNLA were simulated on six fresh cadaveric specimens to compare the anatomical differences in surgical exposure between the two approaches.
resultsIn the clinical study, both groups successfully achieved fracture healing. Compared with the PMSA group, the MNLA group had several advantages, including shorter operative times, lower intraoperative blood loss, and a lower edema rate of posterior cervical muscles. However, similar results were observed between the two groups in terms of the range of motion in rotation of C1-C2, patient satisfaction, Visual Analogue Scale score for neck pain, axial symptom scores, and neck disability index at the last follow-up. In the cadaveric study, we found the trapezius-splenius capitis interface and the course of the greater occipital nerve (GON) varied significantly and the GON was present in the surgical field in 2 of 6 specimens in the PMSA, which brought difficulties for the surgical operation. In contrast, the MNLA, using the spinous process of C2 and the obliquus capitis inferior (OCI) as anatomical landmarks, provided a simpler surgical procedure and easier exposure.
conclusionBoth the MNLA and the PMSA demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes for the treatment of odontoid fractures. However, compared with the PMSA, the MNLA, using the spinous process of C2 and the OCI as anatomical landmarks, offers advantages of the stability of the surgical procedure, easy exposure, and reduced iatrogenic damage to the cervical posterior muscles and GON.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.